BillyZ
Aroca City currently funds its public schools through taxes on property.
In place of this system, the city plans to introduce a sales tax of three percent on all retail sales in the city. Critics protest that 3 percent of current retail sales falls short of the amount raised for schools by property taxes.
The critics are correct on this point.
Nevertheless, implementing the plan will probably not reduce the money going to Aroca’s schools. Several large retailers have selected Aroca City as the site for huge new stores, and these are certain to draw large numbers of shoppers from neighboring municipalities, where sales are taxed at rates of six percent and more. In consequence, retail sales in Aroca City are bound to increase substantially.
In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
Question on the
blue vs the
pink - who is making this conclusion in the
blue -- is it the author ? Per my understanding, yes
I find that strange because the
same author, then makes another conclusion in the
pink -- 180 degrees opposite to the conclusion he just made in the
blue.
This is when i start panacking and i start losing confidence to do this question --- How can the same author make 2 conclusions (
blue vs the
pink) -- that are diagonally opposite to each other ?
Do these first 2 conclusions (blue vs pink) mean that the author agrees that
PRESENTLY, 3 % of CURRENT retail sales is LESS than the amount raised by property taxes
BUT IN THE FUTURE, for some reason - implementing the plan will probably not reduce the money going to Aroca’s schools